Thinking It Through: Censorship is all the rage, man! – VVdailypress.com

By Richard Reeb| For the Victorville Daily Press

Democrats across America can hardly wait for the Biden administration to commence, impatient with the seeming delay of that glorious day caused by legal challenges to questionable balloting in battleground states brought by the campaign of President Donald Trump. Evidently, they look upon the office of the President elect as an actual one, not acknowledging the fact that Democrat Al Gore held up the transition for over a month back in 2000.

I say seeming above because only the Constitution, with its stipulation that the next administration begins on Jan. 20, 2021, can be blamed for standing in the way of four years of folly, increased taxes and spending, overregulation, indulgence of rioting, incessant propaganda and, worst of all, suppression of our constitutional rights.

We must remind ourselves that the Constitution is not just a kind of guide to political conduct; it is the supreme law of the land. That refers both to the governmental powers granted and denied, and the individual rights and liberties secured. Those impatient with the pace of political change look upon that foundational touchstone as in need of changing with the times or, equally vile, being refashioned (rather than upheld) by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our nation has in this remarkable year of 2020 (to say the least) endured a pandemic and shutdown, massive rioting in our cities and a presidential campaign marked by shameless lying and censorship designed to push over the finish line the man who often displayed signs of severe dementia. What we have endured we will be subjected to still more.

Looking at all these shenanigans with a detached perspective is Samuel Alito, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, who actually issued an order to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to stay its vote counting until issues of constitutionality can be resolved. In a virtual speech to the Federalist Society, Alito expressed alarm over what he regards as the greatest general suppression of citizens liberties in our nations history.

As Paul Mirengoff at Powerline reported, Alitos message was that key American rights are in jeopardy. He noted, for example, that the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty.

We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020, he said.

Alito was careful to emphasize, Miengoff continues, that he wasnt diminishing the severity of the viruss threat to public health, or even taking a position on whether the restrictions are good public policy. However, he argued that the restrictions on public gatherings and worship services highlighted trends that were already present before the virus struck, including a dominance of lawmaking by executive fiat rather than by legislators and the relegation of certain rights to second-class status.

Religious rights, for example. Alito homed in on the decision of Nevada to limit church attendance to 50 people, while reopening large casinos to 50% capacity. It pains me to say it, but in certain quarters religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right, he concluded.

Take a quick look at the Constitution, Alito urged. You will see the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty. You will not find a craps clause, or a blackjack clause, or a slot machine clause.

Alito made his remarks, mind you, as the encroachment on our liberties continues, and in the face of Biden advisor Sheldon Whitehouses threat to restructure the Supreme Court if it makes a pro-gun ruling in the current judicial session. Thats a polite term for court packing, which the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg opposed.

Add to this the frequent demands by leftist Democrats for a truth commission to squash the careers of anyone who served in the Trump administration, worked prominently in Trump campaigns or contributed substantially to them. After a finding of complicity in alleged evil, the object will be to demand that positions in the public or private sector be closed to these miscreants.

Actions follow words. For political purposes, but also out of misguided ideological conviction, the Democrats have hurled charges of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and even transphobia against the Trump administration and all those in support of it. Now comes the fun part, which consists in validating all those specious charges by our equivalent of the French Revolutions reign of terror that sent thousands to the guillotine. If such is not now available, just give the Left time and opportunity, and some device equally deadly will no doubt appear.

This is not paranoia. When disregard for the Constitution coincides with fanaticism, the result is predictable: Political assassination.

Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of Taking Journalism Seriously: Objectivity as a Partisan Cause (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.

Go here to see the original:

Thinking It Through: Censorship is all the rage, man! - VVdailypress.com

It is offensive to pretend that anyone is shocked by Keralas draconian new censorship law – OpIndia

First, the Kerala model of healthcare fell even behind the Bihar model of containing Coronavirus. Then, there was the gold scam. And elections in Kerala are due in six months. Naturally, it is time for Keralas Communist government to bring a new law that couldimposefive years in jail for offensive posts on social media.

And with this, Pinarayi Vijayan has established himself as one of the most forward thinking and open minded among Communist leaders who have ever been. This law could be the beginning of a kinder, gentler Communist Party.

I dont mean that in a sarcastic way. It is very factual. You cannot expect Communists to learn democratic values overnight. It has to be a gradual process. For instance, the NDA government in Bihar was recently facing three term anti-incumbency. It pleaded its case before the people and won again. The Communist government in Kerala is facing just one term anti-incumbency. But Communists dont react like that. They can only react with oppression. Its the only thing they know.

This law is a beginning. Five years in jail for offensive social media posts. I presume that the accused will get some sort of hearing in a court of law before the conviction. A judicial process. No torture. No death penalty. And no concentration camp. This is a step forward, folks. Towards a kinder, gentler brand of Communism.

In the recent past, Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan has been an outspokenfanof North Koreas Communist dictator Kim Jong Un. In the past, the CPIM had passed a resolution supporting the 1989 Tiananmenn Square massacre in China. Some people say that as a student leader, Sitaram Yechury had himself distributed Chinese Communistpropagandaon the Tiananmenn Square incident. When the Communists ruled over Bengal, there were 28,000 political murders in the first 20 years of Communist rule. This is the official numberthat the Communist government admittedon the floor of West Bengal Assembly. We can only guess what the real number would be.

In view of this, a legal process and a maximum penalty of five years in jail does not seem so bad at all. If you are lucky, the penalty could be as little as a fine of Rs 10,000. Historically, dissenters against Communism never got such a good deal.

If there is one thing that is offensive, it is a handful of liberals pretending to be shocked by Keralas new law. First, there were not many of them. But a small handful did put out one or two word tweets feigning disagreement.

You have to understand that this is just positioning. The tiny handful who objected are also part of the plan. To create the narrative that Communists have some kind of conscience. Dont judge the left by what they do when they are outnumbered and in the opposition. You have to judge the left by what they do when they are in power.

Further, with these one or two word tweets, they are trying to make you think that this draconian law is the worst thing that the CPIM has ever done. If there was a time to be shocked, it was when Pinarayi Vijayan paidtributesto a convicted murderer. Or when he supported Kim Jong Un. If there is something to criticize the CPIM for, it is the 28,000 political murders under their rule in Bengal.

Pretending to be shocked or surprised by Kerala governments new law is like being shocked that Stalin would cheat while playing hide and seek as a kid.

Yes, if a BJP government had brought a law such as this, there would have been earth-shattering outrage. Liberals would have brought down the sky with invocations of some Pakistani poet who writes about liberty by smashing idols or something. They would have booked the protest venues at Jantar Mantar for months. And millions of $$$ would have flowed from Chinese government coffers to Western newspapers and from there on to Indian liberals to militate against it. And so what? The BJP, the Congress, or say the Samajwadi Party or DMK are part of some sort of consensus on Indian democracy. Despite all the differences.

Are the Communists part of this democratic consensus? Ask a Communist if they even accept the sovereignty of India. Who do you think the Communists supported during the 1962 war? The Indian Communists use the hammer and sickle. The same emblem that appears in the Soviet flag and the Chinese Communist Party flag and in flags of Communist parties worldwide. They are not trying to hide anything. If we cant see the obvious, the joke is on us, really.

I will tell you what the hardcore Communists are thinking right now. They are thinking that sweet old Pinarayi Vijayan has gone too soft on dissenters. The Communists who once ruled Bengal with an iron hand would laugh at his new law. Kim Jong Un would be so unimpressed. Stalin sent his dissenters to build a road in the Siberian permafrost. Some 10 lakh human bodies are buried inside this road, which cuts through some of the most scenic landscapes in the world. Theycallit the Road of Bones.

In this backdrop, Kerala governments new law should be seen as an attempt by Communists to engage with Indias democratic and judicial institutions. We should welcome this. Or better still, figure out what Communists are really about.

Read more here:

It is offensive to pretend that anyone is shocked by Keralas draconian new censorship law - OpIndia

Amazon is censoring: We need your help to distribute this book! – Workers World

Capitalism on a Ventilator is a new anthology comparing the effective Chinese response to COVID-19 to the disastrous response in the U.S. This book pushes back against the racist anti-China campaign in U.S. media.

However, Amazon is currently censoring the books distribution. We need your support to get the book out and to fight back against censorship!

Just released! Download free at workers.org/books.

Make a tax-deductible $25 contribution to oppose Amazon and youll be sent a free copy. The books table of contents and list of authors, along with four chapters and a donation button, are available at wp.me/p4Yme1-404.

The U.S. establishment continues its growing hostility toward China, with an accompanying surge in anti-Asian racism. The effort to place this challenging book on a corporate website has turned into a struggle against censorship. Amazon, the worlds largest online bookseller, claims ease of placement and lack of censorship but failed to deliver.

Instead, the company sent a notice censoring this book and its up-to-date information about COVID-19: Amazon reserves the right to determine what content we offer according to our content guidelines. Your book does not comply with our guidelines. As a result, we are not offering your book for sale.

The notice claimed Amazon refers people only to official sources for advice on the COVID-19 virus. But the corporation has accepted books with wild pandemic conspiracy theories that the virus is exaggerated, a hoax or human-made, and that masks and quarantines are useless.

Readers are urged to break the ban on Capitalism on a Ventilator by sharing the link widely on social media, along with your short reviews. Maintain pressure against Amazon banning books with a left perspective by tweeting the Washington Post @JeffBezos.

Capitalism on a Ventilator was written by people around the world, edited by a U.S. activist and a Chinese activist, and answers a question working people worldwide are asking: Why has China done so much better in containing COVID-19 and saving lives?

Evidence and available data provide a very different answer from that given by the corporate media. China contained the virus because its free medical care and planned economic system are science based and intensely cooperative. By every statistic, countries building socialism have done far better in combating the virus: Cuba, China, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea, to name a few.

We hope you read Capitalism on a Ventilator and explore the reasons why China and other countries building socialism are doing better in this pandemic than the capitalist world. Please share the preview chapters: wp.me/p4Yme1-404.

And your tax-deductible $25 contribution to this campaign against censorship will qualify you for a free copy!

Make a tax free donation at tinyurl.com/y6pleh23.

Read more:

Amazon is censoring: We need your help to distribute this book! - Workers World

Web of Control: Will social media be regulated by censor? – The Financial Express

These would continue to be administered by Meity as before. It was under this Act that the government some months back blocked a host of Chinese apps.

While over-the-top (OTT) players like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+Hotstar, etc, have now come under the ambit of information and broadcasting ministry for regulation purposes, there is no similar clarity with regard to the regulation of intermediaries like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp, etc. This is because they continue to be under the jurisdiction of ministry of electronics and information technology (Meity) which administers them under the relevant sections of Information Technology Act.

However, experts say since intermediaries also have user-generated content and since I&B has become a content regulator now for OTTs apart from being one for cinema and TV, it is also empowered to make laws which can regulate content on the intermediaries.

Just to illustrate, currently user-generated content on any of the intermediaries is governed under Section 79 of the IT Act. This Act basically provides intermediaries certain exemptions from liabilities with regard to content, data and communication, since these are not generated or owned by it but are third-party generated. In such cases if anything unlawful is noticed, Meity directs the intermediary concerned to remove the unlawful content within a specified period of time.

Only if the intermediary concerned fails to do the same expeditiously or it is found that it has conspired, abetted or aided in the generation of such content, can the government take action against it.

However, with the OTTs coming under I&B ministry, the latter has got powers to make rules for user-generated content, which, apart from being transmitted on OTTs, can also be transmitted on intermediaries. For example, any user can generate content and put it on any of the intermediaries. In such cases, even the I&B ministry now has the power to frame rules to regulate content on intermediaries.

Experts say these are early days and clarity on regulation of content, be it on OTTs or intermediaries and any overlap in the case of latter with Meity, would be clear only once the I&B ministry frames rules. Certain fine-tuning of intermediary guidelines is also in the works at the end of Meity so one needs to wait for it also.

Theres no confusion, however, regarding another law which relates to blocking Internet sites, apps, etc, engaged in activities prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of the country, its defence, security of state and public order, under Section 69A of the IT Act. These would continue to be administered by Meity as before. It was under this Act that the government some months back blocked a host of Chinese apps.

Get live Stock Prices from BSE, NSE, US Market and latest NAV, portfolio of Mutual Funds, calculate your tax by Income Tax Calculator, know markets Top Gainers, Top Losers & Best Equity Funds. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Financial Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest Biz news and updates.

See original here:

Web of Control: Will social media be regulated by censor? - The Financial Express

What The Politics?! Ep. 9: Censorship and content moderation – WNCT

by: Emily Cervarich and Victoria Holmes

GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) Over the past few elections, social media has become more and more prevalent. And theres no doubt it held a large role in this years presidential election.

With so many social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and more, how are these companies ensuring safe and transparent information for their users? Should certain ads be banned or restricted? What are the rules on censorship?

Its clear that social media has opened the door for different generations and people from all walks of life to join in the conversation, and receive new information about all sorts of topics.

So what role did social media have in this years election? And what are some of the issues surrounding censorship these platforms?

For this episode of What The Politics?!, Victoria and Emily are joined by Professor Daniel Kreiss. He is an associate professor in the Hussman School of Journalism and Media at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Kreiss is also a principal researcher of the UNC Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life.

Kreiss main field of study is how emerging technologies and social media impact politics, elections, and civic affairs. Kreiss is an affiliated fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. He received a Ph.D. In Communication from Stanford University.

Recently, Kreiss expertise has been cited in The New York Times, Yahoo Finance, and The Washington Post, among others.

Kreiss has also written two books related to the topic:

Taking Our Country Back: The Crafting of Networked Politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama (Oxford University Press, 2012.)

Prototype Politics: Technology-Intensive Campaigning and the Data of Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2016.)

New episodes every Tuesday. Join the conversation!Click here to subscribe onSpotifyand onApple Podcasts.

See the article here:

What The Politics?! Ep. 9: Censorship and content moderation - WNCT

Iqbal Khan: OTT self-censorship shouldn’t come at cost of creative freedom – Daijiworld.com

Mumbai, Nov 22 (IANS): Actor Iqbal Khan says OTT platforms create space for stories and experimentation. While content creators should be responsible, self-censorship should not limit storytelling.

Iqbal, who was last seen in the web series "Crackdown", is currently shooting an upcoming series in the scenic hill town.

"OTT has taken stories to mobiles and laptops, and can be enjoyed anytime and anywhere. I believe that over a period of time synergies will work out between these platforms. Content can be customised for the platforms. As the authorities are mulling self-censorship on OTT platforms, cognisance will be taken of the nature of content being released by responsible content creators. I believe that such censorship would not come at the cost of creative freedom."

Starting his career with music videos, Iqbal worked in several television serials before he made his digital debut with the show "The Bull Of Dalal Street" earlier this year. This was followed by "Crackdown".

"The initial success of OTT prompted me to go for more. I believe that in a short period of time OTT platforms have been able to blur the boundaries of language and geography. Now, good content in any language can be viewed and enjoyed in any part of the world. There are so many stories being told online that good actors can explore much more compared to television or films. However, I always choose a project based on content, irrespective of the exhibition platform or the language," Iqbal mentioned.

Read more:

Iqbal Khan: OTT self-censorship shouldn't come at cost of creative freedom - Daijiworld.com

Murali Gopy writes against censorship of OTT platforms – Times of India

Actor-writer Murali Gopy has spoken against the Central government decision to bring online streaming and news websites under the regulatory purview of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. OTT platforms have offered viewers bold subjects and portrayals, compared to the offerings of mainstream cinema and TV, and that looks set to face curbs, thanks to the government decision which appeared through a gazette notification on November 9. This would apparently mean that OTT platforms would have the same censorship rules as TV.The actor, who has always been a vocal advocate against the idea of censorship of the creative arts, wrote on social media, Saving creative content from Governmental curbs, political agenda and ideological propaganda, is paramount to any democracy. Any effort to curb it, on any creative platform, needs to be fought legally through a concerted effort. Hope that would happen soon. The post was liked by actor and director Prithviraj.Murali also later posted a quote by 20th century Irish playwright George Bernad Shaw, that The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.Editor Abhinav S Nayak, whose film credits include Uriyadi and Aanandam, also posted against the government decision, saying that if OTT platforms do not take up the fight against the government decision, subscribers would just move to other digital providers who would offer uncensored content. It is 2020 and no adult wants their content censored or cut. Piracy will rise and the industry will suffer. Yours sincerely, An adult with a working brain, he wrote.

Originally posted here:

Murali Gopy writes against censorship of OTT platforms - Times of India

Joe Rogan and other creators are in trouble if Spotify has censorship power – The Diamondback

Social media users cannot escape censorship. In an age of misinformation, Facebook and Twitter are attempting to regain control over their platforms and prevent users from spewing unreliable facts online. Removing problematic content is completely understandable, but the actions are also raising concerns.

Music streaming giant Spotify has subtly entered the discussion, and podcast creatives have every reason to be concerned about their work. Love him or hate him, Joe Rogan started this conversation, and his ongoing battle with Spotify is proving just how important it is.

Rogan is among the worlds most popular podcasters, and The Joe Rogan Experience has garnered a fiercely loyal fanbase. His fans not only respect his jokes, but they appreciate his willingness to embrace controversy. From politics to sports to neuroscience, he covers it all.

Rogan dominated podcasting independently before agreeing to a $100 million deal with Spotify earlier this year. Afterward, Spotify employees held meetings to voice their concerns about including his content on the platform. They even threatened to walk out if they could not have direct editorial oversight of the show. Rogan promised back in May there would be no censorship, and that the entire library would be available on Sept. 1.

[Review: The Queens Gambit is a gorgeous look at femininity, addiction and the 1950s]

Yet, when it first debuted on the platform, his show was missing episodes with his most controversial guests. Those included Mikhaila Peterson, Owen Benjamin and Alex Jones, among other right-wing activists, comedians and YouTubers.

Recently, fans noticed another recent episode with Jones had disappeared. If you believe what Spotify has said, then youd think that the episodes deletion was due to a technical glitch. Rogan said the same in an Instagram post that ironically was also deleted. But everything is riddled with speculation nowadays.

Even if listeners believe Rogan, the glitch reminded everyone of how serious censorships effects can be, and the desires of some Spotify employee to censor Rogan have brought up huge red flags for creators on the platform.

Rogan is not affiliated with a political party, but he is definitely a vocal commentator who leans libertarian. The JRE has never been labeled a news podcast, and Rogan is certainly not trying to win the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting.

Instead of acting like a professional news anchor, he often presents repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories while painfully stoned. Rogan was brought to Spotify to be himself, which inevitably means making waves. An episode is sometimes like listening to a group of friends contemplate the existence of aliens while under the influence. Its concerning that Spotify employees hope to have serious editorial privileges over a show that is not even taking itself seriously (and, that utter ridiculousness is arguably responsible for podcastings shocking increase in popularity.)

[Netflix, we need to talk]

Fans are pointing out now that his recent apologies about spreading misinformation are uncharacteristic. In that recent episode with Alex Jones, Rogan met him with a healthy amount of questioning and included a fact-checker.

Trying to be more responsible is a worthwhile effort. However, Rogan should not be forced to lose his unfiltered attitude. That would be a blow to the shows creative integrity, especially given that it was never meant to be an accurate source of information.

Critics argue that someone is bound to take the nonsense that Rogans guests often spew seriously. This would require them to disregard the shows many disclaimers or labels. Some of the guests stances can absolutely be dangerous; however, context is crucial.

Listeners are not deceived into thinking they are hearing from the most sophisticated sources. The JRE could easily be classified as a comedy show. Criticizing a comedians content is easy. A good political comedian needs to push boundaries and make their audience a little uncomfortable. If Rogan cannot do that, he cannot properly do his job.

Call Her Daddys Alex Cooper is another comedy podcast host who deals with controversy over her content. Given the unclear standards for censorship across the internet, there is nothing stopping Spotify employees from going after the beloved Gluck Gluck, too. If political comedy is inappropriate for audiences, vulgar sex jokes are not immune to potential censorship, either.

Ultimately, Spotifys potential restrictive powers are not a political issue but a creative one. Due to the apps size, creators dont have many alternative platforms. Not everyone has a massive Rogan-sized following and budget that would allow them to work independently. Censorship needs to be watched to ensure the platform continues to welcome all podcasters and encourage creativity.

Originally posted here:

Joe Rogan and other creators are in trouble if Spotify has censorship power - The Diamondback

Fanatics have no right to censor critics. But neither does Emmanuel Macron – The Guardian

Letters complaining about newspaper articles are unexceptional. Not so letters from the lyse Palace. Last week, the Financial Times published, after the killing of teacher Samuel Paty in Paris and of churchgoers in Nice, an article by its Europe correspondent, Mehreen Khan, critical of French president Emmanuel Macrons policies towards Islam. Macrons desire to use the state to prescribe a correct religion, she wrote, has more in common with authoritarian Muslim leaders than enlightenment values of separating church and state.

Macron responded with a letter-cum-article defending himself and his policies and accusing Khan of misquoting him he insisted he had never talked of Islamic separatism, as Khan suggested, only of Islamist separatism. By the time the FT published Macrons letter, however, it had removed Khans article for factual inaccuracies. One could read the criticism but not what was being criticised. Newspapers do sometimes excise articles Im sure the Observer has done so. But they should do so only in truly exceptional circumstances, and then give a full account as to why. The removal of offending articles after criticism is, however, becoming a more acceptable part of our culture.

A few days before Khans article was pulled, Politico Europe published a highly disingenuous op-ed by leading French academic Farhad Khosrokhavar. The reason for Islamist terror, he said, lies in Frances extreme form of secularism and its embrace of blasphemy. Intellectuals who came out in praise of blasphemy should have considered their words more carefully. While French secularists are fighting for freedom of expression, he wrote, innocent people are dying, conveniently ignoring the fact that its not secularists doing the killing. You will have to take my word for all this because, after a barrage of criticism, Politico Europe removed the article for not meeting our editorial standards. I disagree with Khosrokhavars article, but I disagree, too, with its removal. This is not how journalism or public debate should work, or can work, especially when engaging with contentious issues.

At the same time, arguments such as Khosrokhavars must be robustly challenged. The claim that secularism and blasphemy help radicalise Islamists is false and dangerous. France has suffered grievously from Islamist terror 267 people have died in terror attacks since 2012 but it is far from a unique target. A week after the Nice killings came an Islamist terror attack in Vienna, with four people shot dead. Austria, unlike France, has a highly restrictive blasphemy law, which has been used to criminalise critics of Islam. In between the attacks in Nice and Vienna came terror strikes in Kabul and Peshawar, on university students and a Quran study class. The vast majority of jihadist killings are in Muslim-majority countries with obnoxiously tight blasphemy laws. Secularists and blasphemers in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and elsewhere have long faced murderous assaults, from both jihadists and the authorities. These are the people betrayed by western critics of blasphemy.

To say this is not to say that one should therefore defend Macron or his policies. For these policies, like much of the French response to Islam and terror, are shot through with hypocrisy and illiberalism. For all its claimed attachment to free speech, France has tough laws against speech deemed unacceptable, from Holocaust denial to insulting the French flag. It has criminalised those who call for a boycott of Israel. It has banned protests against Charlie Hebdo, and, after the 2015 massacre of the magazines staff, dozens of Muslims were arrested for suggesting sympathy with the killers, including a boy who posted on Facebook a cartoon mocking the magazine. A proposed law threatens academic freedom in the name of the values of the republic. Another would outlaw any filming of police in which officers may be identified.

Police brutality against those of North African origin is well documented. There is deep-seated racism in many spheres of social life from employment to housing, though figures are sparse given French reluctance to collect ethnic data. Being colour blind is all too often cover for being blind to racism.

Racism and double standards cannot be challenged by caving in to those who wish to restrict speech or the right to blaspheme. Nor can free speech be bolstered, or terrorism contained, by ignoring double standards, racist bigotry and the illiberalism of much of Macrons policies.

The struggles for free speech, in defence of secularism, against racism and to counter terrorism are inextricably linked. Self-censorship in response to Islamist threats needs resisting. So does self-censorship in response to the displeasure of democratic leaders.

Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

Link:

Fanatics have no right to censor critics. But neither does Emmanuel Macron - The Guardian

Big Tech Censorship Is Proof That Media Are Trying To Steal The Election – The Federalist

Twitter is censoring conservatives sharing information and opinions about the election, reinforcing the expected big tech bias against dissenting voices. Since it has been established that Big Techs censorship often targets the truth such as the recovered Hunter Biden laptop, whether research backs mask mandates, the efficacy of certain anti-COVID drugs, the Russiagate coup attempt its clampdown on discussion of electoral integrity indicates it is indeed a concern.

The Federalists John Daniel Davidson wrote an article breaking down some of the suspicious activity associated with key states, headlined Yes, Democrats Are Trying To Steal The Election In Michigan, Wisconsin, And Pennsylvania.

Twitter censored The Federalists tweet of this article, prohibiting any shares, likes, or comments. The label on the post claims that the article contained disputed or misleading information related to the election.

Davidsons article, however, simply breaks down some of the significant voting discrepancies that have been raised as multiple battleground states continue to be uncalled and undecided.

Earlier in the day, Twitter censored The Federalist Co-Founder Sean Davis multiple times, preventing people from sharing or interacting with some of his tweets, for simply restating Pennsylvanias supreme court decision declaring that all ballots received after election day, including those without a postmark, will be counted.

Pennsylvanias top court said that all ballots received after election day even those without a postmark must be assumed to have been cast by election day, Davis said in a retweet of National Review Senior Writer David Harsanyi, who stated that PA is allowing post-election day ballots. Its a fact.

The same thing occurred when Davis pointed out a suspicious vote dump in Michigan that clocked 138,339 votes in the middle of the night all for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Other conservative voices were also censored by Twitter such as The Daily Wires Matt Walsh.

Even the president was censored for claiming that the Democrats are attempting to steal the election.

A tweet from Biden claiming that were gonna win this, however, received no attention from the big tech giant.

The media also criticized Trump for announcing that he won even while states were being counted, but the same scrutiny was not applied when Bidens lawyer Bob Bauer prematurely declared a Biden victory.

It is clear from these labels, the limited distribution of these posts, and the hypocrisy demonstrated that big tech and the media dont believe that people can think for themselves. It is also clear that they are heavily invested in preventing the public from discussing or discovering the truth through inquiry and debate, as that often gives people the will to resist political changes imposed through lies.

Instead of admitting that there are still many unknowns in the presidential election, big tech and the media continue to assist Democrats in making a Biden win an inevitability rather than ensuring that all legal ballots are accurately counted so that both sides can trust the election outcome is legitimate.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Read more:

Big Tech Censorship Is Proof That Media Are Trying To Steal The Election - The Federalist